Update at 2:47 p.m.: NOTE: The post has been revised to add Attorney General Greg Abbott's statement, the reactions of the two couples who sued and some other Texas political leaders, as well as a mention of recent rulings in other states.

Original item at 1:20 p.m.: A federal judge in San Antonio ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutionally deprives some citizens of due process and equal protection under the law by stigmatizing their relationships and treating them differently from opposite-sex couples.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings as having trumped Texas’ moves to ban gay marriage.

“Today's court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” he said in his order. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

But Garcia’s ruling, while a major victory for groups seeking to make marriage legal for gay and lesbian couples nationwide, will not win them Texas marriage licenses anytime soon.

Although Garcia issued a preliminary injunction against the state's enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he stayed it from taking effect until his ruling can be reviewed on appeal.

Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would appeal.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage," said Abbott, a Republican who is running for governor. "The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. If the 5th [U.S.] Circuit [Court of Appeals] honors those precedents, then today’s decision should be overturned and the Texas Constitution will be upheld.”

Most legal experts expect Garcia's ruling, or similar ones by federal judges in other states, to eventually reach the Supreme Court. The case he ruled on was brought by two gay men from Plano who want to get married and two Austin lesbians who want Texas to recognize their out-of-state marriage.

The case is one of three federal lawsuits challenging the Texas ban — and the furthest along. Nationally, similar battles are underway in federal courts in 24 states.

Garcia handed gay rights activists their latest in a series of victories, following similar decisions in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia. In Kentucky, a federal judge recently ordered recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state. In Illinois, another federal judge ruled that even though the legislature there last year repealed a state ban on gay marriage, couples shouldn't have to wait until the law becomes effective in June.

Reaction from Texas political leaders was swift -- and mixed.

Though Abbott called it "an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides," his fellow Republican, Gov. Rick Perry, said "it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens."

Perry called Garcia's ruling "yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box."

Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, who as a state senator was chief author of the 2005 state constitutional ban, also flashed with emotion.

"I am disappointed that judicial activism is once again trying to trump the will of the people," said Staples, who is locked in a tough four-way fight for lieutenant governor in Tuesday's GOP primary. "This ruling is the poster child of the culture war occurring in America today. We will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court."

“Those in control of this state need to stop fighting the future," Watson said. "They must stop governing by fear. They must stop pretending there’s some security blanket in laws that treat others unfairly."

State Democratic Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said, "Today, all Texans can celebrate that we are one step closer to justice and equality for all."

After a hearing earlier this month, Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged that his ruling would be far from the final say on the matter. He predicted the case, or one of dozens of similar ones in other states, "will make its way to the Supreme Court."

In June, the justices ruled, 5-4, that married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

Seventeen states have broadened the definition of marriage to include gay couples. On Monday, a group called Freedom to Marry announced it has begun a new $1 million campaign to win support for similar measures in the South.

But the region offers entrenched resistance, especially in Texas.

Abbott strongly opposes legalizing gay marriage, as do four of his fellow Republicans in next week's GOP primary for lieutenant governor. So do three GOP candidates in the race to succeed Abbott as attorney general. It's been 20 years since a Democrat won a statewide race. The GOP controls the Legislature. In November’s elections, it’s expected to easily retain control.

Arguing the case before Garcia, Mike Murphy, an assistant solicitor general in Abbott’s office, said the four plaintiffs were trying to “rewrite over 150 years of Texas law” by asking courts to intervene in the democratic process.

In states such as Texas, "legislators and citizens have concluded that the better course is to preserve the traditional definition of marriage,” Murphy told Garcia.

Phariss and Holmes, who’ve been domestic partners for more than 16 years, brought the suit, along with Austin residents Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman. De Leon and Dimetman got married in Massachusetts in 2009. They have a young son.

De Leon and Dimetman, in a statement, said they hope their son "will never know how this denial of equal protections demeaned our family and belittled his parents' relationship."

Their lawyers, Barry Chasnoff and Neel Lane, argued at the Feb. 12 hearing that it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court strikes down gay-marriage bans in Texas and 32 other states.

Chasnoff said the states have violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying a privilege — the ability to marry — for reasons mostly of hostility or “animus” toward gay men and lesbians.

Nodding at his clients seated behind him, Chasnoff said, “They are honorable, productive members of society. And yet they are here today because the state of Texas chooses to deny them the right to marry the one they love."